Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Nope.
It's just when people say we should murder people, it's against the terms of service, so the comment gets removed.
So you can say pretty much anywhere:
Even:
But you can't say:
It's honestly not that complicated, but lots of people seem to be confused.
Incorrect. A comment was removed that simply said "Luigi did nothing wrong", which aligns with your first example. The reason given was "wrongful advocacy", which suggests having a positive opinion of Luigi is against TOS.
If it should work as you described, it seems the mods are confused too.
Well, by law he is innocent until proven guilty in the USA, so if mods are removing comments like that they should be removed as mods.
It's one thing to say he's innocent because you believe he didn't murder the guy. It's an entirely different thing to say he was justified in murdering someone, or to encourage others to commit a murder. The latter is not legally defensible.
It sounds like you are describing jury nullification.
Sure, that's one option. Juries have the authority to apply a moral standard rather than a legal standard. Another apparently viable option is to request a presidential pardon. Or better yet, run for office and win.
Personally, I doubt the evidence against Luigi is conclusive, so I'd argue that he's simply innocent. But I would certainly not encourage anyone else to start murdering executives, because that would be legally indefensible.
Waaaay back when it happened (feels like months but wasn't it just a few weeks?) there was a mod who didn't understand things and removed some comments they shouldn't. What I remember blowing up was removal of a comment just mentioning jury nullification was a thing. The mod thought because you'd get removed from a jury for talking about it, it was against US law to talk about it.
Which is incredibly ignorant.
Going off memory tho admins stepped in quickly and clarified what was ok.
So if you want to talk about a past issue and how it was resolved, that's fine.
But it's a different conversation than what we're having, which is about post admin clarification
So, you want how things are being run today? Great. A comment was removed 22 hours ago that simply said “Luigi did nothing wrong”, and the reason given was "wrongful advocacy". Check the modlogs.
There is currently a mod who doesn't understand things and is removing some comments they shouldn't. Present tense.
Was that from an instance admin or an overzealous community mod? I am missing some context, but generally there is no bar for entry for who gets to be a moderator and they are allowed to run their communities however they want as long as their rules don't contradict those of the instance. I could make a community that bans people for using the word "blanket" and that's my prerogative as long as it doesn't violate instance rules.
No idea why you're being so vague....
This?
https://lemmy.world/comment/14592254
Looks like a mod replied and then deleted so not sure what they said.
But yeah, those comments don't seem to violate .world's TOS, and I have no idea why a mod would have deleted them. But mods can be stricter than the instance.
I'm not sure why you're blaming the whole instance for what one mod is doing.
Edit:
The thread title is "how to fight fascism" which is important context I missed earlier.
So yeah, the first comment saying just "Luigi" could very easily be considered a call to violence. Then the next one say "did nothing wrong" also makes sense to remove.
I took back comments that assumed it was a form of humor, which I would have understood, but the replies to me playing along threw out that context.
My first reply was to ask "if that keeps the fascists away, what would keep Luigi away", and that's when I started seeing a lot of F-bombs and "more people should be like Luigi" type of responses build up. I even clarified my comment, giving what amounted to another chance. More F-bombs, more Luigi emulation replies, etc. I removed the more explicit examples head-on and gave a temporary response to the one that half-amounted as a meme, which was the "did nothing wrong" response, even looking at past comments from everyone.
Yeah, once I noticed the post title it made sense why you removed the comments.
But even without that:
It's ridiculous that people leap to the ".world is full of pro-corprate fascists" because they disagree with a single mod.
There's more than few instances I dont like, so I've blocked them and never see them. I don't know why people with the axe to grind against .world dont do the same thing.
Edgy kids just want to find the line and then constantly put their toes over it and claim nothing is allowed because they personally crossed a line.
I'm not sure why you claim I'm being vague when I directly quote an entire comment.
You said "it’s against the terms of service, so the comment gets removed". I pointed to a comment that did NOT violate terms of service, but got removed. You defended the instance with a faulty statement. All I did was point it out.
And no, it wasn't a call to violence. If the statement was "we need more Luigis", then THAT's a call to violence. Just saying "he did nothing wrong" is the same as saying you hope he gets a jury nullification. It's just taking his side.
"Luigi" was the response to "how do we fight fascism"...
That is the context you were avoiding by not linking.
This isn't an argument, I'm trying to explain something to you.
I wasn't talking about the "Luigi" comment. I was talking about the "did nothing wrong" comment. The "Luigi" comment can be seen as a call to violence, but the "did nothing wrong" comment was just a sign of support, not a call to violence. And the "did nothing wrong" comment was removed FIRST.
I fully understand what you're saying. You're just wrong.
That doesn't take the other ones out of the question though.
As opposed to there being more to it than that?
There was more to it than that, at least in the particular circumstances, that affected the results.
Yea uhhh could I get a #1 a #2 and an extra extra large #3 with extra pb sauce
Who orders peanut butter sauce from a fast food place?
They don’t seem happy with “Luigi did nothing wrong” either despite that being a value judgment, not a call to action, imo.
In the particular instance at least, it wasn't just a value judgment, there was more to what happened that affected the results.
Murder is always wrong, of course. This was simply an imperfect self-defense.
It's actually not always wrong...
Legally speaking:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
Not saying it's perfect, but it's likely the defense he'll use if not denying he pulled the trigger.
They'd just have to convince a jury that denying healthcare which causes injury and death to a shit ton of Americans is a use of imment force and this action would have lessened it.
If they show that after the shooting less claims were denied....
It probably won't work, but that's the path to jury nullification without saying jury nullification is our defense.
https://documentedny.com/2023/07/27/new-york-self-defense-laws-stand-your-ground/
It's a sound legal defense, and as far as I know it's his only option.
But as always: IANAL
I don’t see the Judge allowing any evidence about UHC’s practices to be admitted, unfortunately
Unfortunately, the CEO's threat to life is lawful which would preclude this defence. Not saying I don't support Luigi. Just that it is a good thing nullification exists.
Devils advocate:
Luigi can claim he believes it's unlawful...
It doesn't have to actually be unlawful.
His lawyers can start talking about why it's lawful for insurance companies to decline claims based onnshitty AI.
Opening up a huge can of worms because records disclosed in this can be used for civil trials later...
Especially class actions for people the AI denied wrongly.
Like, dude allegedly executed a CEO in broad daylight, why wouldn't he want to try and steer this court case towards that stuff?
No it isn't, don't be dense.. In fact, Eco-Fasicm is the answer! Let's speed-run this human extinction, as we are a truly the worst and most evil species on this planet.. Death penalty for mankind, pronto!
Not true. Not only was Luigi never insured with UnitedHealth, but the CEO he killed was on the path to reforming what he thought was a negative system. Go watch the Dateline Tonight episode on Luigi. The facts, when assembled, challenge the validity and true agenda of Luigi's support.